This is a good example of what I mean...if a democrat had been president during an attack that destroyed the twin towers, initiated two wars as a result, one of which based on distortion and exaggeration, mismanaged that war for three years, initiated a social program that went unpaid for, inherited a fed budget in virtual balance but doubled the national debt and left the country with the worst recession since 1929 and a financial collapse, you'd be finding every imaginable accusation and insult to lambaste that democrat. Instead you call the current president, a democrat who inherited this mess, incompetent, despite the fact that things have turned around...
Perhaps, I guess we'll never know. But whatever hypocrisy I might have is infinitesimal compared to that on the Left, so I don't feel too badly about it.
All of the points you raised are matters of opinion. I supported the Iraq War and I don't feel the wars were mismanaged at all; I just think that wars sometimes turn out to be harder than you thought. That view has nothing to do with politics and a lot to do with having read a very large number of war histories. During no war in American History has a political party behaved the war the Democrats did, however -- fully supporting the war effort until the day the war started to look difficult, then run like hell from previously held positions. That was a first.
It is a fact that I generally believe Democrats have been our worst presidents, at least in my lifetime. But even Clinton, who I thought was incompetent, couldn't have touched Obama for his incompetence.
The bottom line is that you if you support Barack Obama it is simply incomprehensible you would accuse someone else of partisanship; no one could possibly look at Obama and say the man is qualified to be in the office. The man is grossly incompetent and any reasonable observer would conclude the same. Bush was highly competent by any measure and behaved in a manner consistent with the highest levels of integrity. That's important to me. |
